Letter: Are unnecessary military bases a form of welfare?

Periodically during the past few decades, Congress authorizes a study of the utility of military bases within the U.S. The conclusion is invariably that dozens of our bases serve little or no useful purpose, and any useful functions could be easily consolidated into the scope of other existing bases. Then, also invariably, representatives of the districts in which those bases reside collude to prevent closure of those unnecessary bases.

This process brings to mind the seemingly unrelated issue of the Universal Basic Income, or UBI, a radical proposal currently being tested on a small scale in Finland and Canada. Under a UBI system, people are given a basic subsistence income whether they work or not. Those who work can augment their UBI stipend and thereby afford nicer toys and vacations, while those who choose not to work can still afford basic food, clothing and shelter.

The question then becomes, “Is there really any difference between people who simply receive a government stipend without any pretext of performing any useful function, and people who receive a government stipend for going through the irrelevant motions of operating an unnecessary military base?”

Perhaps construction of unnecessary military bases in hard-hit rust-belt regions is the answer to our national jobs problem.

This story was originally published September 20, 2017 at 1:57 PM with the headline "Letter: Are unnecessary military bases a form of welfare?."